[MUSIC] Speaking about the dissonance and the disconnect that there is perhaps between energy communities, climate communities, those working on food and water and other issues. What's the problem with having this compartmentalization that we witness in the energy and climate policy field. >> Well as in so many parts of the world, these issues are in reality, integrated one with another. But all too often policy makers, and I'm afraid academic departments, don't see them together. So you have people who are perhaps trained in energy and the extractive industries in universities. Then people on the other hand, who are trained in climate change and environmental sciences. But you don't see people having a joint approach to both energy and climate. And that's what policymakers needs. And frankly, it's what any kind of informed public assumes already exists. I think people are generally quite horrified to discover that there isn't this kind of joined-up thinking. Because that's what I think they assume that government is for. >> So life cycle and assessment, environmental impact assessment, The use of these to understand, beforehand, the impacts of policy investments, either by government as a procurement or by business sector, for natural resources, particularly. These were helping us understand impacts in a way that is beginning to feed into the mindset of government. Now, I'm only saying that is beginning to. There are real variations across the world. There's excellent example is Costa Rica, I think. Costa Rica has recognized the interdependence of the impact of economic activity on ecosystems. And how you need to consider the impacts and create fiscal tools to deliver an integrated government system for management of an economy. So the management of its own use of fossil fuels. The management of its water, the management of its land for agriculture purposes and forestry. This, the emergence of what known as a global landscape governance. Now, for some people, that may only be global landscape without the city. But there's increasingly an understanding that the city is part of the global landscape as well. And the interrelationships between these, both in terms of energy consumption and in terms of emissions. That's why, under the one of the Paris outcomes was the reaffirmation of the NAZCA. Which was the thing I mentioned earlier, where cities and amongst others, like big businesses, are committing to reducing their emissions. And so, they're establishing policies. Now these will and are, beginning to have an effect on the way in which either federal governments, or state level governments, or national governments, are perceiving how they develop policy in different areas >> The reality is that we do have these disparate groups, we do have different agendas, we do have different sources of power. What we need to develop is an understanding at the domestic, regional, and international level, that there are implications beyond these specific areas. Be it environmental, or energy, or climate, or manufacturing, or business. All of these things, there's an overview that must be taken. That discourse has to begin. That discourse has to be accepted. That these things cannot be seen in isolation. We've seen the impact of the globalization of the economy in many positive and negative ways. In both the global North and global South. What we're seeing is the globalization of the impact of energy choices. We need to find new ways of discussing that. And again, I think one of the challenges in the next five years will be trying new ways of communicating, trying new ways of getting policies to align. And it will be a question of trial and error. >> One of the difficulties I think is that some of the established institutions have self interests in terms of protecting their territory in terms of influence. I think a really good example is how the IEA, once the arena was established for renewable energy they. It did have an influence on the IEA in terms of they woke up to the fact that renewables was part of energy. But they don't really work in partnership in the way that you would like to see happen. They deliver their own reports. They're trying to encourage investment through different countries, and work through different channels. I think another problem is that the political division between countries is still changing geopolitical. So we're seeing the establishment of new institutions that are focused away from the old sense of power. And that could be really great. Like the establishment of the infrastructure bank in Beijing. We see the US isn't being involved in it whatsoever. The idea that these new institutions would somehow be better than the old ones. When we're looking at some of these institutions they're replicating the same kind of model. So they're not really rethinking and delivering sort of paradigm shift. The green climate fund, which took years to agree. And was supposed to be taking on board the needs of developing in small island states and that they decided how the money was going to be used. I mean, in its mission statement, it says that it's at their forefront of a paradigm shift, in terms of moving towards a low carbon world. But when you look at how it's functioning already, there's patterns of classic, sort of institutional, sort of entrenchment of old ideas. Getting caught up in classic battles between different donors and how the money is being used and etc. It's all power struggles. So I think governance is always about power. And power is not always related to a good end objective in terms of corporation. There's all these struggles. And the idea that we sort of seamlessly move towards sort of cooperative world where the institutions are sort of working together at all levels to achieve the end objectives of a low carbon world. It won't happen like that. It'll be rough and it'll be sometimes it'll feel like we're not getting anywhere. But I think there are pockets where there's new ways of thinking and new ways of approaching things. But it's trying to make space for those to flourish. One of the big hindrances I think could be if we do see governments handing over responsibility for establishing governance over energy and energy systems, to large scale business. I think that we won't be seeing more democratization and empowerment of those that are the poorest at the moment. >> Grand strategy, global corporate policy, all of these issues demand comprehensive assessments. And comprehensive integrating strategies isn't good enough. And never has been to compartmentalize in this way. The compartmentalization serves old thinking and vested interests. Whereas the public and the objective situation, require an integrated strategic approach to these issues. So that you should look at employment, industrial policy, national security, and foreign policy, and climate policy in an integrated way. And frankly, if policy was a fruit machine, renewable energy comes up gold on all bars. Because in all of these areas, you get better foreign policy, you get better national security policy, you get better employment policy, and you deal with climate change. Therefore it's a mistake if your main concern is climate change, to ignore these other areas. And it's a mistake if you're in international security policy to think that climate issues are simply for tree hugging greens. They can have a real impact on international security priorities. >> The governance is definitely about a change away from the institutions, and rules, and systems that we have now, to a much more integrated system. And I think the sustainable development goals here, are again, can easily be knocked for one being voluntary and nobody's held to account if they're not met, etc. The UN sustainable development goals, 17 goals, the key point is that they're interconnected. So if you're aiming to alleviate, completely, energy poverty, it has to be done by not increasing climate change. You mustn't undermine the effort to mitigate climate change. You must also not increase deforestation and land degradation. You must also contribute to the education of people and their health and well being. So there's a way, there is something emerging and I, in my optimistic days, when I have my optimistic days. I think the Paris Agreement and the sustainable development goals, with the political will, and the policy commitment spurred on by knowledge entrepreneurs be they academics or business, or civil society. Can bring about a transformation in the way in which we perceive and relate to the world. Now that's being really positive and being very optimistic. In a time when things are seeming quite bleak. We could talk about the increasing fragmentation in terms of the world. The reduction in apparent cooperation. And we are in a very different world to 1992 when the UNF Triple C was a greed which in the much more on the surfaces of a, we come together. This idea that integration is going to happen using international mechanisms. We didn't get to the Paris Agreement or the sustainable development goals without having traveled from 1992. There's been development in thinking and understanding. And yes, we face the reality of politics, and conflict, and terrorism. But you have to be optimistic, I think. And the optimism is about trying to invest in new ways of understanding about policy around energy and climate. Because they are the building blocks for almost everything else. [MUSIC]
